hi I love your tags so so much! they were so sweet and so interesting and creative and the whole Aphrodite type of beauty thing sounds really interesting do you have any articles and recommendations to read further into it??
-hogoflight
Hello my fine feathered (I am assuming possession of feathers if you are, indeed, capable of flight) @hogoflight! I'm always always happy to hear that people appreciate my frenzied rambling in the tags :D! I have a lot of articles and recommendations :D!! Ancient Greek notions of beauty and representations of it in their art and sculptures is a pretty well studied topic! There isn't any way for us now to know definitively what the beauty standard was (it varied widely from region to region and culture to culture after all) but here are a couple of my favourite reads about Aphrodite and what her representations tell us about idealised beauty!
Probably the most empirically extensive one I can list is Krönström's thesis which compares statues of Aphrodite and literary text referring to both the goddess and mortal women to determine physical ideals for women in five specific eras of Grecian antiquity. Including measurements of the statues there are many descriptions of Aphrodite as 'curvy' with a 'voluptuous figure' and with 'ample buttocks and bosom'.
"When the beauty traits are
described in the texts, they are never extreme or anything that could not be found in normal
people just that they are more beautiful in every aspect. Furthermore, the sculptures’ physical
forms look healthy, they are tall and have distinct curves. Great examples of this are the Knida
sculpture and de Milo (the Melian) sculpture."
Of course, these images are still idealised, and there was still a concept such as 'too fat' or 'too skinny' found in written records (and this thesis even includes analysis of pornographic writings and descriptions of the fashion and stylings of pubic hair of women from different regions!!) but from an interpretational standpoint? There is absolutely no reason why these can't refer to a fuller figure. Height was also a very important factor after all and over the course of many eras, it seems like being well proportioned in addition to the length and appearance of one's hair were the most important factors (and, like Apollo, greater beauty was given to those with curlier hair)
Mireille M. Lee's 'Other Ways of Seeing' essay which talks about the forgotten female viewers of Knidian Aphrodite which is also extremely illuminating on how Aphroditic sexuality and sensuality was perceived totally differently from the well documented male voyeuristic gaze (which was overly preoccupied with the statue's nakedness and therefore over-sensationalised the statue's physical appearance) vs women's perspective on the statue which is more centered on the beauty of simplicity in Aphrodite's garment and decoration and in her power and ability to captivate both in her finery and without it. I think it's especially useful in exploring the importance of finery, jewellry and adornment in representations of Aphroditic beauty.
"Some of the small-scale copies are
heavily jeweled, especially those from the eastern Mediterranean, for example the Hellenistic gilded terracotta statuette in the Çanakkale Museum (Fig. 5) in which the goddess wears, in addition to the armband on her (right) arm, the following: a necklace with multiple pendants; cross-bands extending over both shoulders and hips, with a cascading pendant in the center; a coiled snake armband on the left arm and another snake on her left thigh, and a twisted anklet on her right leg. (The left leg has been restored, and might also have featured an anklet.)"
"Jewelry is especially associated with Aphrodite in Greek literature. As seen above, in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, the goddess adorns herself with gold jewelry, dress-pins, and earrings in the shape of flowers (162–3)..."
Finally, and to me, the most important one in the argument for an interpretation of Hyacinthus as fat, beautiful and fundamentally Aphroditic comes from Brilmayer's brilliant brilliant thesis done on Aphrodite's work and influence in Archaic Greek Poetry which does away with all of that masculine preoccupation with physical proportion, measurement and bodily ideals for a focus on a Sapphic Aphroditic ideal centered in clothing, ornamentation and, most importantly cunning as symbols of Aphrodite and ultimately a feminine idealised form of beauty. This paper also discusses Pandora and Helen in these terms and it is just kind of a wonderful read tbh.
"Combining Homeric and Hesiodic elements
with her own ideas, she [Sappho] alters the way female beauty
is viewed. For example, the Homeric war chariot – a
symbol of male, military prowess - comes to
symbolise the totality of Aphrodite’s power uniting
in itself male and female qualities.
Having addressed the concept of beauty directly,
Sappho then concludes that beauty lies in the eye of
the beholder. With the help of Helen of Troy and her
beloved Anaktoria, Sappho sets out to reinvent the
concept of female beauty as a godlike, subjective
quality that may be expressed in many ways, yet
remains inspired by Aphrodite."
The conclusion to all of this of course is that Aphroditic ideal beauty is much more fluid compared to its stricter Apolline masculine standard. The nuances and understandings of both are of course, constantly being studied, analysed and scrutinised but really, if Dionysus who was both bearded and clean shorn, effeminate, birthed and rebirthed (and twice gestated!) and strongly associated with vegetation can be popularly portrayed as fat and handsome, why can't Hyacinthus?!
22 notes
·
View notes
Canon Characters vs OC vs x Reader
Disclaimer: This is just my two cents, and my perspective on things, and I'm not trying to lay down the law for everyone. I needed to just put this to words though, in order to sleep.
I was thinking about this because of a post I saw, and some, we'll say, kind of useless comments associated with the post. Mean-spirited stuff.
Normally, in one ear and out the other, but the vibes just kicked me off down a rabbit hole of sorts an I wanted to try to put some of my thoughts to words.
First, some style vibes:
Canon x Canon Canon/Canon stories are, to me, like reading an episode of that show. I'm sitting down in front of a TV or whatever, and I'm experiencing the story As A Viewer. I like this style because I don't really have to expend much energy and I just kind of roll with whatever's happening. Generally some sort of 3rd person perspective.
OC x canon OC/Canon stories are like being on a carnival ride. I'm sitting in a car on a roller-coaster, and maybe the OC is sitting next me. I'm experiencing the story more deeply than strictly canon stories, but my connection with the OC is no deeper than say, my connection with Katniss Everdeen when I read The Hunger Games. Sometimes 3rd person, sometimes first person.
Reader x canon Reader/Canon (or Reader x/ OC) is like putting on a VR helmet. I don't get much physical input about the "Reader OC" because I'm experiencing the story through their eyes. I don't expect the reader to be me, but there's a bigger feeling of immersion to be had. Some description might happen cause it's relevant to the story, and it's still a type of ride, I can't jump the rails on the roller coaster, after all. (Even with a VN you still follow the tracks). Sometimes first person, sometimes second person (I'm partial to 2nd person perspective, but that's just me).
I love Fan Fiction, I love it. All of it, and man even more than anything, what I love is that I'm going to dislike 80% of it. Because that 80% was written for someone who is not me. (Hell, that number's probably closer to 99% if we're looking at ALL fandoms, but I digress).
Second - The VENT:
What got me the most in the post that prompted this, was someone saying "Bring back the Mary Sue OCs!" and then they went on to describe something more detailed, and I just -
Look, respectfully, fuck you.
The point is, you're not going to be happy no matter what. Whether it's "mary sue" OCs, or x readers, or alternative universes, or a ship you don't like, you're going to find something to be unhappy about.
Cause people have been bitching about all styles of fan fiction since the first "You've Got Mail" chimed in 1991. And until 1998 and ff.net you really had to hunt for it, and until 2007 and Ao3 the idea of tagging a fic for any reason wasn't really a thing. Every click was a surprise! \o/
I just have seen the same song and dance a dozen times. It's exhausting. People become okay with OCs and decide x readers are the enemy, and before that OCs were *all* Mary Sues and cringe and people who made OCs were the enemy, and before OCs people who wrote even a little OOC were the enemy, and people who wrote AUs were the enemy, and you can write fan fic but it HAS to be Canon Compliant, and everyone MUST be in-character at all times - "They would not fucking say that" was the enemy.
Look, just please - please - in any capacity, stop it with the "All X style of story telling is crap" mindset. There's over a dozen different ways to do x readers alone. I know 20 x reader writers and I don't think any of us have the same style, preferences, or vibes.
I've had a lot of comments along the lines of "I thought I hated x readers, but I really loved this." on a few different fics I've written. Sometimes it's not the style of the fic, sometimes it's the style of the writer, and my Brother In Christ - you're going to have to read some awful shit to shuffle through the thousands of writers out there to find the vibes that resonate with you.
Ostracizing entire swathes of fan fic because you need something to be "The Enemy" so you can lift up something else, and then bitching you can't find anything new to read seems like a personal problem.
And I know y'all are scrolling by TONS of posts that don't interest you, every day, as a matter of course. So don't give me that "clogging up the tag" BS, because we deserve to be here same as anyone else in the fandom.
34 notes
·
View notes
it fucks me up that like. metal sonic used to have a ton of characterisation and just from his like ten lines in heroes had a ton of complexity and then he just got fucking ignored despite having the potential to easily be the best character in the franchise. like even back in cd his sprites were full of personality! he recreates sonics finger wag before the start of the race! he has his death animation! it’s cute! but it also shows from the start that he's obviously sentient and not a mindless machine. he's cocky and adrenaline-fuelled like sonic, but in a way devoid of any sense of kindness or empathy. and this is expanded upon beautifully in the ova! his characterisation is the absolute highlight of that movie and his suicide at the end is an extremely tragic but extremely fitting end to that version of him.
metal sonic's character is one defined by monomaniacal obsession. he is literally designed only to surpass sonic. from creation, he has known and he always has known he exists only in relation to sonic. he is designed after him, his personality is modelled on him, and he is programmed to view defeating him as his only worth. he's the ultimate character to rival sonic, because that’s all he exists for, in universe. he cannot conceive of an existence that is not devoted to destroying him. this is established as a character trait as early as the ova, and it’s one that’ll be expanded upon as the series progresses.
the ova explores the tragedy of that, but heroes, metal sonic's grand return after cd (after numerous really fucking cool appearances in spin-offs and being a major unlockable in sonic adventure dx bc he is cool and the best sonic character and I have no bias), explores the horror. in the ova, he allows himself to burn to spare sonic, but what if he doesn’t learn compassion and empathy? what if he's still the same cruel, pointlessly violent metal in cd? the metal sonic of the games would not sacrifice himself for sonic's sake. he wants nothing more than to defeat him. he despises him, yet in a way he also wants to be him. sonic is everything he cannot be. both in the sense that he beats him, again and again, but in that he has free will, in that he has friends, in that he has a life.
and, in his most sonic-like moment, metal sonic rebels against his programming.
but this metal sonic is not one that has learnt kindness, like the ova metal. he is angry. he knows nothing but destruction because he is destruction. and he never, ever gives up. he wants to prove to himself that he can defeat sonic, that it was his creator holding him back. that he can be better than eggman, that he can be better than sonic. that he can be sonic. that he is sonic. that the other hedgehog calling himself sonic is merely a fake.
metal sonic, in sonic heroes, is delusional. and not in the sense of “scary insane person woah!” ableist nonsense, he's genuinely, deeply lost in the grasp of a delusion. metal sonic's existence is one that will inevitably lead to severe mental illness. he's stuck in a cycle where he feels nothing but pain and can never achieve what he wants. the concept of metal sonic in heroes is terrifying in his rage, but even more horrific is the idea of being him. despite his arrogance, metal sonic is in pain, and his response to that is to lash out violently. and also to become god.
metal sonic upgrades himself to the point of godhood. he is angry, and he is scared, and he gives that away himself. he states he’s no longer afraid of anything after the upgrades- which leaves some pretty fucking depressing hints as to metal sonic's general mental state before heroes. and this drives him to the point of becoming an almost incomprehensibly powerful being. like canonically heroes metal sonic is one of the strongest beings in the series, he can copy the data and abilities of incredibly powerful beings permanently. he's at least got the strength of shadow and chaos combined which is fucking terrifying. and he loses.
he loses, because what he wants is not something he can get with outmatching sonic in speed and strength. what he deeply desires, though he cannot express it, is something else. personhood. metal sonic desperately asks why he cannot win, and sonic's response is. admittedly the very cheesy title drop of “because we're sonic heroes” but cheese aside, that ultimately sums up why metal sonic could not succeed. metal sonic does not have friends. he doesn’t have freedom or happiness or any sort of sense of self. he cannot ever truly achieve his goals, because to destroy sonic and become him are mutually incompatible. he's forever driven down a self destructive path, one way or the other. metal sonic's existence is, in and of itself, a tragedy.
and all of this is from thirty fucking minutes of screen time. including gameplay.
metal sonic is very obviously a character who takes heavy inspiration from the terminator franchise. and i fucking love terminator, for one, so that’s awesome. but two, the best terminator film will always be terminator 2 because it's as much an exploration of what it means to be human and the concept of fate as an action horror flick, and metal sonic as a character is also at his best when he's used to explore similar themes. he's a character chained to a fate he cannot change, a character so desperate for personhood that can never achieve it, and it’s what makes him so terrifying and intimidating. he's not just a mindless machine, nor coldly logical- he's desperate and has nothing to lose. he's such a formidable foe because he takes risks that are rash and irrational because he's so driven to the depths of his psyche he'd do anything to finally succeed. any competently programmed bot wouldn’t risk itself for an infinitesimal advantage, any mindless drone wouldn’t come up with half the shit metal does, but he is both extremely intelligent and suicidally desperate.
and then after heroes he just kinda became a cooler badnik. like, cool things have happened with him in spin-offs, and of all things 06 was originally planned to have continued his story after heroes as a playable character, but that was cut along with. like half the game. but it’s just sad the main series made such a compelling villain and then just went. “okay but what if we never use him again”.
12 notes
·
View notes